State of S

[ZHNL]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You forgot sensor size....and that extra light gathering real estate has always mattered...digital or film (negative size).

 

That aside, a few of the variables you mention (primarily cost, lens selection/size and reliability) are reasons why the 5DSR currently has appeal for me relative to the S.  But MF is a different animal from 35mm.

 

Jeff

 

Well, I didn't. IF we are talking about the same sensor technology say Pentax 645Z vs A7RII or D810, yes, bigger the sensor, better the performance. (theoretically. ) Or, if we compare APS-C to FF sony sensor, or Canon APS-C to their FF sensor. Bigger always better. 

 

but from what I see S007 is about 1 stop or two lower DR than D810 at the same condition at base ISO. S006 is worse. At higher ISO, the difference is actually getting slightly worse.

 

What I love about S, especially S006/S2 sensor is its skin tone color are very pleasing to my eyes without extensive process.(S007 is also surprisingly good) The S lens I have have very nice rendering for given aperture, they are equivalent to 28mm f2 and 56mm f2 in 135, though not the fastest, but still I can;t get similar rendering with 135 format f2 lens.

 

For landscape stuff, as much as I love S, I can recreate S output with D810 without too much hassle. D810 per pix quality with high class glass is actually very high to my eyes. I love my S system and have no plan to quit it for a niche reason. and as I said, I personally happy with 37M sensor and have no immediate plan to upgrade even with new model introduced but I am mainly discuss the state of S. 5 or 6 years ago, 37M MF S camera with 35mm type of operation sounds revolutionary and wonderful with no real 35mm format competition anywhere close to it (well, maybe there is D800 later), but at year 2016, it is not anymore. 

[Jon Warwick]

But then I look at those files from the S - it's the tonality and the smoothness, the super rich colour and the detail within detail that really is knock out and I don't see that in Nikon or Canon and in some ways, not even in the Phase One.

 

This is kind of where I'm at too .... for me, I see tonality and smoothness (and color accuracy) as the main benefits for why I might switch from my M240 into an S006.  I find many digital images to be jarring in their rendering, but images off the Leica S appear particularly smooth and natural-looking.  Almost filmic compared to many digital cameras.

 

I don't know if this smoothness would remain a feature if they cranked up the megapixel count to something like 60mp, or whether the S lenses' rendering would maintain the rendering that I really like, nor what would happen to edge sharpness / acuity if they crammed in more pixels. 

 

But I know I'd be enormously curious to see what a theoretical 60mp S and its lenses could achieve ...... if it was in an SL style body (to eliminate mirror movement) it could be a potentially remarkable machine.

 

I guess (as part of an investment in S lenses now),  if Leica theoretically ever developed the S into the form of an SL-style mirrorless, is there any reason why existing S lenses -- designed for an SLR -- wouldn't work as perfectly ?

 

Oh, and of course, a proper (Leica S) wide T/S lens ..... that, out of everything, would be the Number 1 catalyst for me being happy to buy into an S now .......

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Paul J]

This is kind of where I'm at too .... for me, I see tonality and smoothness (and color accuracy) as the main benefits for why I might switch from my M240 into an S006.  I find many digital images to be jarring in their rendering, but images off the Leica S appear particularly smooth and natural-looking.  Almost filmic compared to many digital cameras.

 

I don't know if this smoothness would remain a feature if they cranked up the megapixel count to something like 60mp, or whether the S lenses' rendering would maintain the rendering that I really like, nor what would happen to edge sharpness / acuity if they crammed in more pixels. 

 

But I know I'd be enormously curious to see what a theoretical 60mp S and its lenses could achieve ...... if it was in an SL style body (to eliminate mirror movement) it could be a potentially remarkable machine.

 

I guess (as part of an investment in S lenses now),  if Leica theoretically ever developed the S into the form of an SL-style mirrorless, is there any reason why existing S lenses -- designed for an SLR -- wouldn't work as perfectly ?

 

Oh, and of course, a proper (Leica S) wide T/S lens ..... that, out of everything, would be the Number 1 catalyst for me being happy to buy into an S now .......

Well said - Yes, I agree, I find that jarring feeling in all of the 135 formats, less so in Leica M. They tend to look choppy with severe focus transitions relative to larger sensors, relatively flat, low colour and lacking in that extra detail and life you get from medium format. There is some of this extra that I'm maybe not even seeing in my Phase One system - Sure, it's the lenses but that sensor/lens combo is particularly special in the S.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about EVF S though, personally. I'm not a fan of them. I've not tried the SL but the a7r II, I can't stand at all, the colour, the tonal range, the backlight and it's colour, it's very harsh and choppy to look at,IMO. I found it quite a distraction and obliterated the nuances and subtitles that I find important - but admit I may get used to it if necessary. I like what it can do and I wanted to like it but I don't feel the technology is quite there yet, maybe by nature of it being a video screen it won't be ever something I will like. Where I see it being useful right now is a hybrid set up where you can use an OVF too.

Edited April 12, 2016 by Paul J

[tom0511]

I've been seriously considering the S, but what to make of its future?

 

It's currently plagued by unreliability with seemingly no real solution other than (please correct if wrong) fudge-fixes, delays and expense, and continued threat of sudden death failures while shooting.

 

While it's output is stunning, and lens quality wonderful, it's resolution has become the elephant in the room. Will it ever change? When? 135 Formats are closing the gap on cameras like the S, have been doing so for some time, and it seems to be accelerating faster than we can imagine. 80MP models are not far off, they are even rumoured for Photokina, so what is left for the S? One would hope, sinking such a large sum in the system, this would be upgraded in time, but there has been no sign of such growth and I'm no longer sure it's going to happen with Leica. Medium Format in other brands has moved on - will Leica? Will there be new lenses? are there any signs of development? Will it be another 3 years?

 

Is the SL poised to take the place of the S? At this point in time, it's quite possible. Leica don't have a great track record, dumping the R and leaving their users in the lurch.

 

I have been seriously considering the S, and I continue to wonder, but these are the issues and questions I have which are turning me off. So what do we know?

 

I am sure one day Leica will bring an S with more resolution. But when? If you want/need more resolution I would rather buy a camera which offers such resolution today.

 

Regarding the "AF issues" - I am one of those who owns various lenses and has not had issues so far. I have a close friend who lives from photography and usses S system for many years as main system and he also has not had issues with AF.  So we do know some people do have issues (which I dont doubt and which is not good), but we do not know how many lenses have problems and how often the problem occurs. We do know that Leica has taken care of technical problems in the past, mostly for free (like sensor corrossion) but we do also know it takes sometimes time until they commit. I dont see why Leica would skip the S system, I believe it has been more successful than they ever expected.

I dont think the SL can take the place of the S. I own both and while the SL seems a good camera IQ is not on par like the S.

I find it great to have a camera nearly as fast and portable as a FF DSLR but with medium format look.

If you are undecided, why not buy a used S006 and 2-3 used lenses so you would not loose much/any money in kind you are not happy.

[Jon Warwick]

I dont think the SL can take the place of the S. I own both and while the SL seems a good camera IQ is not on par like the S.

I find it great to have a camera nearly as fast and portable as a FF DSLR but with medium format look.

 

I think the more "throwaround" use of the S is really its DNA, and what sets it apart from other MF cameras. I agree that the handling of the S is like a 35mm FF DSLR on steroids ..... but with a much superior rendering.

I think the 007 (given CMOS benefits) is a lot more throwaround than the 006, however.

[tom0511]

I think the more "throwaround" use of the S is really its DNA, and what sets it apart from other MF cameras. I agree that the handling of the S is like a 35mm FF DSLR on steroids ..... but with a much superior rendering.

I think the 007 (given CMOS benefits) is a lot more throwaround than the 006, however.

 

I think both are great but being able to shoot ISO 1600-3200 and achieve good IQ certainly extends the flexibility of the S007 a lot.

I enjoy that flexibility so much that I gave up to wonder about minor differences in color between ccd and cmos, even though I admit that I might (very) slightly prefer S006 IQ at low ISO.

[adamdewilde]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The S-006 is AWESOME sauce. No better sensor out there for the look I like and the colors I like. Sure you can get sensors that are more sensitive to light, more MP etc. But nothing quite like the S-006.

 

Also, it's not that slow once you get use to it. Sure you'll never shoot sports on it. But why would you want to shoot sports with it? Plenty of better cameras for that.

 

The lenses are top notch. That 45S and 100S, both killer and a very versatile fashion kit. Or 35/70/120 for weddings, especially if you have two bodies!

[Joshua Lowe]

A lot of mentions of P1 and Hblad but no Pentax? The 645Z has a really impressive sensor but it doesn't seem to get a lot of consideration. Is it the lenses that are holding it back?

Edited April 17, 2016 by Joshua Lowe

[Photoskeptic]

Concerning the AF lens problems - are new lenses being sold now for which a permanent fix has been implemented?

Once again, I sit on the fence with Hasselblad on one side and Leica S on the other. I test a Hasselblad next week. If anyone knows of a dealer which will loan or rent me an S, I would like to hear which one.

[Jeff S]

I think the Leica Miami store (David Farkas) has, or had, a demo program for the S.  Maybe worth a call to check.  Also, I don't think lens rentals has the S, but they might be able to guide you elsewhere.

 

Jeff

[Photoskeptic]

Thanks, Jeff. Yes, Lens Rentals dropped their S program quite some time ago. I'll give Leica Miami a shout in the morning.

[mwilliamsphotography]

 

I'm a bit late to this thread, but thought to share a few points based on experience with quite a few of the systems being discussed here. Much of that experience is professional work, but includes a fare amount of personal photography. Hmm, where to start?

 

Paul has asked some highly relevant questions IMO. However, they are tainted by "marketing speak" ... at least the meg count portion IMO. 

 

In recent years the meg race has emerged as the top marketing consideration followed by its' side-kick "Dynamic Range". Nikon kicked it off with a 36meg FF 35mm camera that was supposed to be the death knell for MFD. It wasn't. Immediately, the consequences of packing a 35mm frame with that many pixels became apparent ... even Nikon recommended only certain lenses. What also became apparent is that hand-holding a higher meg 35mm suddenly became an issue if you actually wanted to utilize those 36megs.

 

Enter Sony with the demure mirror-less FF 36meg A7R. The answer to many folks prayers, until they actually got one. Followed swiftly by the A7R-II with 43 meg ... and fortunately IBIS because hand holding that camera still and fully realizing the 43 meg is near impossible. People like to dispute this consequence, but no one is that good at hand-held work. 

 

Point is, as meg count increases with-in a given space, it becomes increasingly difficult to utilize it even with the best lenses in the world (BTW, S lenses have other characteristics to consider beside resolving power). The determining factor of how much raw resolution one needs is to be found in one's intent and applications, not marketing and peer pressure. Any given camera is outdated only if one's needs exceed its capabilities ... otherwise, it is just as capable as it ever was. 

 

When I needed a lot of resolution for commercial applications I used a Hasselblad 60 meg 645 sized sensor camera, and for studio work a Hasselblad Multi-Shot camera. My companion camera to that was a 40 meg Hasselblad H. As my needs, intent and applications changed, I sold the 60 meg, then tested the S2P against the 40 meg Hasselblad ... and went with the S system which I still use ... currently a S(006).

 

That decision was fairly easy because the S system better fit my changing photographic direction. 1) it was a dual shutter camera allowing up to 1/4000 FPS available light work and up to 1/1000 CS sync with lighting. The H was 1/800 only. 2) the lenses for the S offered faster maximum apertures, and for many focal lengths had visual characteristics I preferred. Finally, I simply liked the S Camera results as more organic in look and feel.  

 

IMO, Dynamic Range and Higher ISOs are also a dual edged sword. Depending on the task, excessive dynamic rage can be a boon or a detriment. When shooting stuff like weddings, flat raw images were a huge PITA which at least doubled the processing time. 800 to 1000 images a week that need adjusting to provide some "pop!" sucks. My Nikon D3X was 24 meg and produced flatter images than my 24 meg Sony A900 using the same sensor. The decision to replace the Nikon was a no brainer ... based on specific applications and time demands.

 

Same with higher ISO. These cameras are optimized at a specific ISO, and as soon as you boost that, the image/color or something else suffers ... usually the color and dynamic range. Not that improving it isn't a worthy goal that is being achieved, but marketing hype and fan boys have over-stated the reality and down-played the consequences.

 

S reliability is not an annomly with web complainers seemingly exaggerating the issues. It is real and needs to be addressed by Leica with more vigor than up to now. Leica has strongly backed their S product with support for known issues, however, service is sluggish and repairs don't necessarily fix the issue with a better solution. Documenting the saga of my S repair issues would rival the Iliad in length. Most people would have just abandoned the system, which is testimony to how much I love the images from this camera. Yet, I do not take it anywhere without a Sony A7R-II and Zeiss lenses as back-up (a weak back-up IMO, but better than nothing). I'm not rough on my gear, and I rarely had any issues with my Hasselblads, and have had virtually none with any of my Nikon, Canon, Mamiya/Leaf or Sony gear ... nor very much with the M cameras used over 40 years. 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[ZHNL]

Marc, Very nice post as always. No question about S color, file quality(S006). As for con, in addition to reliability, I want add poor AF performance, sluggish shutter delay and mirror black out. S007 fixed shutter delay, improve the AF and high ISO but also loose the little magic of color and file quality which is the one of biggest reasons I am still with S. (It is still nice, but not different enough compare to other manufactures anymore) 

 

As for handhold-ability, if that is the concern you have with 35mm system, I suggest you try D810,(I think 5DSR also improve their mirror action, A7RII should be great with e-shutter too) The mirror is very soft at the same time snap. it is about 2 stop better than S006. still better than S007 by a fair margin. The handhold images are sharp enough to print very big,(can survive pixels PP) and most Nikon Lens I used (not to mention Zeiss premium ones.) can and will be able to resolve 36M sensor, at faster aperture, center did, at landscape aperture, corner catch up as well.

 

I agree one of biggest incentive to shoot S is leaf shutter, which is not a priority for me. 

 

I even agree MOSTLY that resolution is a market spec for most users, but sadly, we are not talking product in vacuum.  It is all about competition and sell your product. 

Edited April 22, 2016 by ZHNL

[Paul J]

Good points Marc, well made.

 

I don't find higher MP a marketing argument, any more than the argument for less. If you need them, you need them, and you know when you do. as for small cameras, we can not put new technology sensors with old technology camera designs together in the future, this is abundantly clear. The Canon 5DS R is a great camera which I have used a lot lately. I can use that handheld without even thinking about it, it certainly used without concern. The shutter and mirror dampening is exceptionally well designed. Though, the file quality, colour and tonality is not on par with the S.

Edited April 23, 2016 by Paul J

[mwilliamsphotography]

Let me explain a bit clearer.

 

While I have no doubt that 36 meg, 43 meg and 50 meg FF 35mm cameras are excellent, realizing the full effect of all that extra resolution is not as easy as it would seem on the surface. I've seen a couple of tests where hand held shot were evaluated and the in-use resolution of 36 meg sensor cameras was no more than a 20 meg camera ... I believe Lyyoyd was one of them.  

 

I also have no doubt that the images from these cameras are also excellent, however in common 35mm use, they'd be hard to tell from a 24 meg camera. Mirror damping probably helps, but the Sony A7R-II doesn't have a mirror, and that camera is difficult to realize its' full 43 megs of resolution even with IBIS ... unless you treat it the same way you would a MFD camera. The fact that high res delivers in either case ... less so hand-held, but also more potential when locked down or using a shutter speed 2X to 3X the focal length, demonstrates the versatility. 

 

To test this notion, I've shot some images with my A7R-II hand-held in a controlled studio environment, and compared them to the same shots on a heavy studio tripod, and there was a visible difference.

 

The most vivid example of this principle for me was while using a Hasselblad 39 meg Multi-Shot digital back on a H body. This set-up has to be shot on a tripod while tethered to a computer. The software assumes control of the sequencing of shots ... the mirror goes up, the leaf-shutter lens stops down, the camera takes a calibration shot, then three spaced out shots while micro shifting the sensor. IF there is any vibration (even walking on a wood floor), the sequence of shots is aborted. Of course, this "pin register" is an extreme example, but it illustrates the level of absolute steadiness required to realize the full effect of increased resolution.

 

I have no illusions regarding the S cameras when working with available light ... if I want the full effect of the 37 meg, I use a tripod or at least a HD mono-pod, as well as a bit higher shutter speed. With lighting the issue is not as critical ... the flash duration mitigates it.

 

- Marc

 

BTW, I agree that there is little out there that matches the file quality, color and tonality of the S ...   

 

Edited April 25, 2016 by fotografz

[Paul J]

I'm not comparing a multishot back - You would have to be mad to think you can handhold that. If you re using a Multishot back you are on a tripod - It's irrelevant to the conversation really.

 

These are also not my findings with a Hasselblad H and 60MP Phase One back. I hand hold it all day long in the studio without issue. I handhold it all day long on location too, using a tripod when necessary but I am not a tripod shooter and I don't use one often. I'm obviously not talking about doing this with continuous, or daylight, at 1/15th of a second but if you are mindful of your shutter speed, or using the necessary lighting, or higher ISO, then it's not even a consideration. Especially so with flash, which is operating in the thousands of a second.

 

I've shot with my Blad and Phase at 60th of a second with continuous light, HMI, Tungsten, Kino, plenty of times and got the desired amount of resolution - To me, this is a total non issue. It's not something I do often because it's usually more a case of having the subject moving and causing blur- something no camera or MP count will mitigate.

 

Most things in photography are solved by throwing more light at it, this is one of them and it doesn't just solve a problem, it creates more amazing images so it's totally worth the extra effort involved. But you don't shoot high MP medium format and not expect to shoot with more light, because that is what is required, so I'm somewhat surprised this argument even exists - this is what the S is for, and it is even more capable and flexible for a MF camera given it's form.

 

Lastly, using the argument that it only creates the resolution of a 24MP is very a limited one. It's usually made by bloggers who have little practical commercial experience. Blur from either photographer or subject is ALWAYS there, no matter the resolution. If it needs to be there for what ever reason (because you can't mitigate it with a compromise of some kind)  then there is no way around it and you are stuck with it. Just because you have a 24Mp file doesn't mean it is not still there. BUT, it's not just about creating a 24MP image - shoot a 24MP and a 60MP camera together at 1/60th, enlarge the pictures to 3m in size and the 60MP will still look a LOT better. Interpolation is interpolation - the 24MP file will be blown apart and even the least experienced photographer will see the differences.

[RobertGeorge]

I find the S2 comfortably hand-holdable. It's just understanding, isn't it – knowing the required shutter speed for near-guaranteed optimal performance (1/500th+ for the 100mm summicron,) and when to sacrifice critical sharpness to let in enough light. I can't shoot the S2 (nor my prior D800e) like I could the ever-forgiving D3, but that fact makes absolute sense. The top end from the S2 is above the D3 and so requires a different approach. I can dig one handed with a trowel, but need two for a shovel.  

 

www.sunoxen.com – everything in the Madrid: Holy Week section is handheld with the 100mm. The night shots aren't razor sharp (all shot at 1/60th) but they print well at A3+ (the largest my home printer will go.) I collected three A1 prints yesterday (eye through red robe, blonde lady with a staff, and the dour lady with deep-red lipstick,) and they're pristine. They certainly could be printed much, much larger. And they're a big improvement over the large prints I made from D3 and D800e files. 

 

Whether this changes at 60, 70, 100mp I've got no idea. It's an interesting question, as I'd pitch solid daylight as the minimum requirement for hand-holding the S2 and getting optimal results, which sits it perfectly for what I require. The need for higher shutter speeds could take that away. Discounting ISO improvements that would come with a new sensor. 

Edited April 25, 2016 by RobertGeorge

[2wk]

^ gorgeous shots.

[OlivePress]

>> "I would argue 99.9% of the population think a iPad or iPhone "takes great photos" and is "good enough." Clearly we don't think so."

 

 

Paul J -

what do you mean by "great photos" ? 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mgrayson3]

An iPhone can take a great photo - and I don't mean "it's the photographer not the camera". If you need everything from inches to infinity in focus, nothing beats a tiny sensor. I love my S, but it can't do this:

 

 

--Matt